Millennium Development Goals and Climate Change
Governments and big business were not the only sectors to wake up to the threat of climate change during 2006 and 2007. The international development community finally absorbed the reality that strategies to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are being stabbed in the back by the impact of climate change. For example, the
Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP) belatedly added climate change to its list of core issues. This process of enlightenment culminated in the UN Human Development Report for 2007/08 which for the first time
focused on the impact of climate change on poverty. The Report is unequivocal in concluding that stabilisation of greenhouse gas emissions is an “essential part of the overall fight against poverty and for the MDGs”.
The interdependence is all too painfully obvious.
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, a section of the 2007 4th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), confirms that the most basic components of human development in poor countries, freshwater availability and crop yields, will bear the brunt of climate change. Africa is not only the most vulnerable region but is also the one continent for which IPCC offers quantified predictions as early as 2020. It says that between 75 and 250 million people in Africa may experience water stress, whilst crop yields in some countries could be reduced by 50%. In Asia, glacier retreat in the Himalayas may lead to water shortages for about 1/6th of the world’s population by 2050.
Pressure on food security and water resources is a
recipe for rural migration to cities, undermining development strategies for improving education, health services and opportunities for women. Shifting patterns of malaria may jeopardise efforts towards its elimination. The whole pack of cards assembled by the MDGs is therefore built on shaky climate foundations.
Climate Justice
|
|
Island nations and climate change
|
The Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, sent an emotional appeal to the 2007 Bali Climate Change Conference pleading that “the consequences of global climate change are so pressing that it doesn’t matter who was responsible for the past; what matters is who is responsible for the future”. His exclusion of the present in this analysis is telling; the issue of responsibility can hardly be neutral when 19 million citizens of New York State emit more carbon dioxide than 766 million people in 50 poor countries. It is inconceivable that any international agreements could be blind to the
injustice inherent in climate change – that the poorest countries suffer the greatest impact whilst being the lowest contributors.
"Adaptation" is the term given to remedial measures which might attract international reparations for the impact of climate change on poor countries, for example the provision of flood defences, improved irrigation, drought-resistant crop varieties, measures which many richer countries are increasingly adopting themselves at vast expense. Existing UN programmes which assist the least developed countries to conduct
National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) recognise the shortcomings of climate predictions at local level and are extremely modest in scope, seeking only to identify immediate and simple steps that individual communities can take to combat a changing environment. The contribution to adaptation so far has been of the order of $25 million, a fraction of the cost of a single flood defence scheme in Europe.
A frustration for poverty campaigners is the tendency for big ideas emerging in the climate crisis to create yet further injustice for poorer countries - none more so than the
craze for biofuels. These can be produced from crops such as sugar cane and maize and used as additives or substitutes for fossil fuels. Whilst developing countries could benefit from demand for new cash crops, there are greater concerns that local food security may be compromised, that world food prices may be forced upwards and that US food surpluses (currently used for food aid programmes) may disappear. Ambitious biofuel targets announced by both the US and EU may have been conceived with minimal research into the
potential impact on global food security.
|
|
Flood victims in Mozambique
|
There are also injustice concerns over the concept adopted by governments and some campaigning agencies of a “line in the sand” – a tolerance threshold for global warming of 2 degrees beyond which the world steps at its peril. Whilst there may be an element of pragmatism in this suggestion, the IPCC 2007 report shows how the richer countries may be relatively unscathed up to this threshold – indeed
crop production in temperate zones will increase – whilst crops in tropical regions are already at their limit of temperature sensitivity and will suffer lower yields even within a 1 degree rise.
A future challenge for climate justice concerns the status of those people forced to leave their homes by the impact of global warming, especially from delta regions such as Bangladesh - will they be allowed the
same rights as political refugees? The UK Stern Review Report published in 2006 tentatively suggested a number of up to 200 million environmental refugees by 2050.
Beyond the Kyoto Protocol
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) - the international treaty agreed at the Rio “Earth Summit” in 1992 - did acknowledge the climate justice principle that rich countries alone should take responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These countries are known as
“Annex 1 countries” and it is they who are subject to legally binding targets under
The Kyoto Protocol which was negotiated in 1997 as a supplement to the UNFCC and eventually ratified in February 2005.
|
|
Air Canada jet
|
Although current projections suggest that
the aggregate Kyoto target will be achieved, this is no more than a pinprick in the menace of climate change. Its aggregate effect will be to reduce the 1990 level of greenhouse gas emissions by just over 5% by 2012, only a fraction of the cuts recommended by scientists to stabilise the climate. The single most important country refused to participate (the US accounts for about 20% of world emissions) and key sources of
emissions from aviation and shipping are omitted. The Kyoto process does nonetheless have its strengths. Unlike vague dependence on new technologies advocated by the US, it does have quantifiable targets and, unlike voluntary measures, these targets are legally binding.
|
|
Bali. Sumber foto: http://www.baliland-forsale.com/
|
Agreement has been reached for Annex 1 countries to hold discussions about emissions targets for the period 2013-2017, and for all countries to discuss cooperation in global strategies, processes which continued at the Bali conference in December 2007. The context for these negotiations has never been more favourable given that 2007 witnessed the collapse of the last bastions of climate change denial -
humiliating recantations by Exxon, the downfall of the Howard government in Australia and a U-turn by President Bush on the existence of global warming – these mark the end of two decades of obstructive abuse of power which future generations may judge according to the degree of climate trauma they inherit. Positive initiatives have been taken by California, the 5th largest economy in the world, which has passed a bill to cut emissions by 25% by 2020; the EU which has committed to 20% cuts by the same date and the UK which is considering legislation to cut by 60% by 2050. This order of reductions extrapolated to a global scale would be at the lower end of scientific recommendations for stabilising the climate.
The 2007/08 Human Development Report points out that the willingness of developing countries to join a future Kyoto Protocol will be influenced by the financial outlay that rich countries are willing to commit to climate change. The Report suggests a figure of 1.6% of GDP ($800 billion pa) to cut emissions, $15-20 billion pa to finance energy efficiency in developing countries, and £86 billion pa for adaptation. In addition developing countries will seek payments for preservation of tropical forests, a vital need given that deforestation contributes about 20% of greenhouse gas emissions. Taken in the context of the current global aid budget of just over $100 billion pa, these demands present an awesome challenge for negotiations, from Bali onwards, which need to be completed by 2009 so that a new protocol could be ratified by 2012.
Technology Transfer
|
|
A renewable future
|
Apart from the soft touch of the Kyoto targets, there is concern about the methods, known as “flexibility mechanisms”, by which the rich countries are permitted to ease their painful task. In particular the
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) encourages Annex 1 countries to install modern climate-friendly technology in developing countries in return for carbon credits towards their own emissions targets.
In theory poorer countries can then leapfrog dirty and inefficient power technology in their energy evolution. But the CDM offers technology transfer as sufficient in itself, with no underlying reference to the real energy needs of developing countries. These needs are increasingly desperate with 1.6 billion people lacking an electricity supply, their schools without lighting and health centres unable to operate equipment. Whilst the Stern Review suggests a figure of $20-30 billion pa to meet this energy shortfall, CDM credits for efficient energy production amounted to only about $1 billion in 2006. Africa has qualified for only 18 out of 708 approved schemes.
|
Climate change strategies therefore need to accommodate a vision for energy-efficient provision of electricity to the world’s people. Meanwhile, developing countries will continue to take the line of least resistance, represented by construction of coal-fired power stations. China plans to build one of these every week and will be doing much the same for its new friends in Africa. The latent demand for energy in the developing world is moving towards an exponential release of greenhouse gas emissions, exactly the opposite of the intentions of the Kyoto planners.
Carbon Neutrality
|
|
Emissions trading © OneWorld.net /
|
The mechanics of trading carbon credits under the CDM have been hijacked for the very different purpose of "offsetting" the emissions of corporations and individuals concerned about their carbon footprint. The apparently cheap availability of sufficient credits has enabled a succession of businesses and municipal authorities to
announce plans to become “carbon neutral” for a modest financial outlay and, perhaps, equally modest behaviour change. For individuals the dilemma of cheap flights is thereby "solved" whilst the oil company
BP offers an offset scheme, governed by the great and good of the UK environmental movement, which promises car drivers that just £20pa will neutralize carbon emissions for annual mileage. This unregulated “voluntary market” in carbon credits is prone to buccaneering traders, bad science, philosophical anxiety and much confusion over its value either to global warming or to poverty reduction.
All that matters to developing countries is whether the resulting financial transfers provide a meaningful contribution to strategic energy production – which is certainly not the case. Indeed, the carbon offset market is viable only because the credits are so underpriced, thanks to the extreme difference in spending power of currencies between rich and poor countries. When offset payments are invested in renewable energy schemes in the home country, the mathematics is somewhat transformed.
China and India
|
|
Poverty in rural China
|
China and India present the great dilemma for post-2012 negotiations. Should they be classified as developing or industrialised countries? Both are host to hundreds of millions of desperately poor people yet India’s industrial tycoons nowadays make takeover bids for major European companies whilst, according to some reports, China has already overtaken the US as the world’s highest emitter of carbon dioxide. The issues are complex, not least that China’s dominance of manufactured goods effectively represents carbon emissions which have been exported from the consumer countries – in 2005 14% of China’s emissions were discharged on goods destined for the US where they could have been manufactured in more efficient factories and without transportation costs.
Extrapolations from the current low per-capita consumption in these two high population countries create
|
|
Glacial lake outburst site, Bhutan © Piet van der Poel
|
climate change scenarios more akin to disaster movies than a scientific basis for policy-making. Yet neither country is prepared for the foreseeable future
to compromise economic development with enforceable emissions targets. Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister, has said that social development is the first priority and that “the developing world cannot accept a freeze on global inequity”. India’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions are 1.1 tonnes per annum against 20 tonnes in the US.
An important influence on the politics could be the specific impact of climate change in these countries. Both face alarming risks from the thaw of Himalayan glaciers;
restricted flow into the River Ganges could impact 500 million people and 35% of India’s irrigated land. Both are dependent on stable monsoon rainfall for agriculture and water supplies, stability which is already showing signs of breakdown. Both countries acknowledge the serious threat of climate change and have started to put in place institutional structures to address the issue, alongside some quantifiable energy-related objectives. Nevertheless there is no current prospect of either India or China being drawn into a post-Kyoto agreement which involves targets for carbon dioxide emissions, unless the Annex 1 countries make commitments on a quite different scale from those to date.
Carbon Citizenship
|
|
Cuisine, Guyiang, China © Tamilla Held
|
If the driving force behind apocalyptic Indo-Chinese emissions scenarios is aspiration to western lifestyles, then the surest solution is to modify them. Climate change is not the root problem; it is just one of several critical environmental symptoms attributable to unsustainable lifestyles. The remedy to climate change lies with the culture of personal behaviour.
In some developed countries there are signs of awareness of this reality at the level which matters most – that of ordinary citizens. Many people have come to realize that the fate of the planet lies in their own hands. They are disillusioned with feeble governments, self-interested businesses and ineffective campaign groups. They see through the
absurdity of structural measures of success; so-called “economic growth” and profit.
|
|
Solar panels at health centre, London © Peter Armstrong
|
Such individuals are striving to meet their Chinese and Indian counterparts halfway – a vision in which poor families should not be denied the right to many of the comforts considered essential in wealthy countries, whilst the latter recognize that any correlation between happiness and consumption is at best doubtful.
The search is on for an underlying philosophy as well as practical mechanisms for such fundamental change. One helpful vision is of a lifestyle which consumes no more than a
fair and equal share of the earth’s capacity to absorb greenhouse gases. In directly addressing the current injustice of climate change, the philosophy of carbon citizenship becomes the antidote to the imperfect world of carbon neutrality.
This Guide has been compiled primarily by reference to the OneWorld archive of climate change articles together with features currently published by OneWorld UK and OneWorld US
---------
Versión para imprimir
Arriba
